Subject: Re: /etc/default
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Niklas Hallqvist <>
List: current-users
Date: 07/26/1995 08:46:05
>>>>> "Greg" == Greg Earle <earle@isolar.Tujunga.CA.US> writes:
Greg> Hey, let's make a change to the rc stuff ... cd to /etc/init.d
Greg> ... move the original to a backup name ... create new one
Greg> ... now go track down all the hard links in rc?.d to the
Greg> original and rename them original_S##<something> ... now let's
Greg> make new hard links to the new init.d script ... BLEAUGH

Come on, you're not that simple-minded.  First off, there's no need to
use hardlinks, even if that's the way SysV does by default.  Why must
we do *exactly* like SysV?  Second, you don't need move/create new,
you might instead copy/edit original, so links won't get destroyed.

I've used these start/stop scripts on SysV machines for years, and
it's really quite nice.  If i want to bring NFS down, I just say "sh
/etc/init.d/nfs stop" etc.  This is esp. nice when having third-party
packages.  The best of it all, which I'm surprised noone have said, is
that the SysV init stuff is a *generalisation* of the BSD way.  This
means you could still have a single rc file if you want.  You don't
need to have several...

Greg> P.S. Or should I have said Keep It Simple, Stupid

If you like, but I'm not sure it is simpler to have one rc file, which
you have to browse every time you want to bring up or down a subsystem
in order to know what needs to be done.

To me it seems like having news in large mailbox files instead of
small "just one article" files.  It's less files to administer but
it's more hassle to deal with the individual entities.

KISS could apply to the SysV design as well, depending on which leg
you stand...


Niklas Hallqvist	Phone: +46-(0)31-40 75 00
Applitron Datasystem	Fax:   +46-(0)31-83 39 50
Molndalsvagen 95	Email:
S-412 63  GOTEBORG	WWW:   Here